DOCSLIB.ORG

Some Reflections on the Intersection of Law and Ethics in Cyber War Maj Gen Charles J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Some Reflections on the Intersection of Law and Ethics in Cyber War Maj Gen Charles J Cyber Focus Senior Leader Perspective Some Reflections on the Intersection of Law and Ethics in Cyber War Maj Gen Charles J. Dunlap Jr., USAF, Retired ew security issues have captured the attention of the public as has the specter of cyber war. In a recent op-ed, President Obama warns that “the cyber threat to our nation is one of the most se- Frious economic and national security challenges we face.”1 This, in turn, has raised many questions about the legal parameters of cyber operations, including the rules applicable to actual cyber war.2 Parallel to the growing interest in the legal aspects of cyber war are an increasing number of questions focused on the ethical dimension. That is an important consideration for any military endeavor but one just emerging with respect to cyber operations.3 Mounting concern about the ethical aspects of cyber activities led the US Naval Academy to spon- sor an entire conference on the subject in the spring of 2012.4 Even January–February 2013 Air & Space Power Journal | 22 Cyber Focus Senior Leader Perspective more recently, the Atlantic published an article entitled “Is It Possible to Wage a Just Cyberwar?,” which discussed several intriguing issues.5 This article reflects upon a few issues that illustrate how legal and ethical concerns intersect in the cyber realm. Such an intersection should not be especially surprising. As historian Geoffrey Best insists, “it must never be forgotten that the law of war, wherever it began at all, began mainly as a matter of religion and ethics. It began in eth- ics and it has kept one foot in ethics ever since.”6 Understanding that relationship is vital to appreciating the full scope of the responsibilities of a cyber warrior in the twenty-first century. Law and Ethics How do law and ethics relate? Certainly, adherence to the law is a baseline ethical responsibility, but it is only that—a baseline. In the March 2012 edition of Armed Forces Journal, Lt Gabriel Bradley, USN, points out that “the law of armed conflict sets minimum standards.” He goes on to argue persuasively that inculcating individual and insti- tutional moral and ethical values—a sense of honor, if you will—is es- sential to ensuring actual compliance with the law. And he is certainly right when he quotes Christopher Coker’s observation that “laws can reaffirm the warrior ethos; they cannot replace it.”7 Of course, even determining the baseline—that is, the law—is not al- ways easy in twenty-first-century operations generally but especially with regard to cyber activities. Among the many reasons for this diffi- culty is the fact that most of the law of armed conflict was designed to address conflicts waged mainly with kinetic weaponry. Nevertheless, in this writer’s view, existing law has ready applicability to cyber op- erations, a notion that perhaps brings us to the first issue regarding the intersection of law, ethics, and cyber operations.8 Specifically, we sometimes hear that cyberspace is such a new domain that no existing law could—or even should—apply to military operations in it. January–February 2013 Air & Space Power Journal | 23 Cyber Focus Senior Leader Perspective Such an idea is simply untrue. Most of the law of armed conflict is not domain specific. Along this line, consider a recent project by the Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research to write a manual specifically on the international law applicable to air and missile warfare.9 The program did produce a useful volume, but it is a relatively thin one since the project discovered a comparatively modest amount of law that seemed wholly unique to the air and space domains. One can say much the same about the cyber domain, includ- ing ethical considerations.10 Furthermore, what sometimes masquerades as a legal problem in cy- ber operations is often more of a technical issue or a policy conun- drum—not an authentic legal problem. The much ballyhooed issue of what constitutes the proverbial “act of war” in the cyber domain offers a good example. Although the phrase “act of war” is a political term, not a legal axiom, such phrases as “use of force” and “armed attack” do have legal meaning and could relate to a casus belli in terms of a force- ful response.11 In fact, the interpretation of such expressions in the cyber realm is resolvable under the law if—and, really, only “if”—technology can pro- vide adequate data regarding, for example, the actual harm caused by the supposed “attack,” as well as sufficient information about who actu- ally did it. Of course, the absence of attribution data (technically chal- lenging to obtain in the cyber realm) can be a definitive legal and ethi- cal bar to a forceful response. This may prove frustrating when people want to “do something” in answer to a cyber incident, but it is hardly unreasonable for the law—and ethics—to require reliable information concerning who might be responsible before launching a counter of some kind. Technologically speaking, the daunting task of determining attribu- tion is not a problem for lawyers or, for that matter, ethicists; rather, it is something for technologists to solve.12 It is interesting, therefore, that the authors of the above-mentioned Atlantic article argue—in rela- tion to the alleged use of a cyber weapon (Stuxnet) against Iran’s nu- January–February 2013 Air & Space Power Journal | 24 Cyber Focus Senior Leader Perspective clear development facilities—that “the lack of attribution of Stuxnet raises ethical concerns because it denied Iran the ability to counterat- tack, encouraging it towards ever more extreme behavior.”13 Aside from the question of whether Iran would necessarily have a legal or moral basis to counterattack as a result of the alleged Stuxnet operation, it is of further interest that the authors of the Atlantic piece say that “to make attribution work, we need international agree- ments.” These would include, they contend, agreements that “cyberat- tacks should carry a digital signature of the attacking organization” and that certain networking protocols could be used to “make attribu- tion easier.”14 Most experts would probably say that current law does not require such facilitation of cyber attribution.15 Nevertheless, the authors of the Atlantic article argue for “better [cooperation] on international network monitoring to trace sources of attacks” and seem to believe that “eco- nomic incentives, such as the threat of trade sanctions, can make such agreements desirable.”16 Again, one might disagree with much about these proposals, but the authors should be commended for at least be- ginning the dialogue on possible ways of addressing one of the most perplexing legal and moral questions of cyber war. As with attribution, technological issues—not the law per se—are also the most challenging aspect of the targeting of cyber weaponry. The cardinal legal and ethical principles of distinction and proportion- ality require technical data that will inform decision makers as to who might be affected by a particular technique, and to what extent.17 Again, that this may prove technically difficult is neither a legal nor an ethical problem but a scientific one. Indeed, one can say that the abil- ity to model effects with dependable accuracy represents one of the most needed capabilities in the world of cyber operations. Such an ability would give decision makers—not to mention lawyers and ethi- cists—the kind of information that is patently essential for making rea- soned judgments about employing a cyber methodology. January–February 2013 Air & Space Power Journal | 25 Cyber Focus Senior Leader Perspective Do Legal and Ethical Values Unduly Encumber Cyber Warriors? Over and above questions about the application of legal regimes and ethical mores to a particular cyber scenario is the broader question of whether any restraints should apply at all. More specifically, some people believe that attempts to apply the law will encumber the United States’ cyber efforts and put its security at risk. This rather sur- prising question lies at the heart of a serious debate in which Stewart Baker and this writer engaged under the auspices of the American Bar Association.18 By way of context, Mr. Baker, a highly respected lawyer with the prestigious Washington law firm of Steptoe and Johnson, had previ- ously served in government as general counsel for the National Secu- rity Agency as well as assistant secretary for policy in the US Depart- ment of Homeland Security. He begins his polemic this way: “Lawyers don’t win wars. But can they lose a war? We’re likely to find out, and soon. Lawyers across the government have raised so many showstop- ping legal questions about cyberwar that they’ve left our military un- able to fight, or even plan for, a war in cyberspace.”19 Mr. Baker further claims that any attempts to “impose limits on cy- berwar [are] . doomed.”20 Among the most troubling aspects of his argument is really an ethical one of the first order. He points to the devastation caused by air warfare during World War II and refers to the claim made by former British prime minister Stanley Baldwin in 1932 that in air warfare “the only defense is in offense, which means that you have got to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves.”21 Mr. Baker then goes on to cite Mr. Baldwin’s “kill more women and children more quickly” concept by asserting that “if we want to defend against the horrors of cyberwar, we need first to face them with the candor of a Stanley Baldwin” (emphasis added).22 Only after construct- January–February 2013 Air & Space Power Journal | 26 Cyber Focus Senior Leader Perspective ing a cyber war strategy so framed would Mr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Redalyc.Lawfare: the Colombian Case
    Revista Científica General José María Córdova ISSN: 1900-6586 [email protected] Escuela Militar de Cadetes "General José María Córdova" Colombia Padilla, Juan Manuel Lawfare: The Colombian Case Revista Científica General José María Córdova, vol. 10, núm. 10, 2012, pp. 107-142 Escuela Militar de Cadetes "General José María Córdova" Bogotá, Colombia Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=476248923006 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Estudios militares Revista Científica “General José María Córdova”, Bogotá D.C. (Colombia) Sección . Vol 10, Núm 10, Año 2012, Junio REVCGJMC.10(10): 107-142, 2012 Lawfare: The Colombian Case * Guerra jurídica: el caso colombiano La guerre juridique: le cas colombien Guerra jurídica: o caso colombiano Recibido: 20 de Febrero de 2012. Aceptado: 15 de Abril de 2012. Juan Manuel Padillaa * Researche monograph originally presented to the School of Advanced Military Studies of the United States Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, approved for Revista Cientifica Public Release. “General José María Córdova”, Bogotá D.C. (Colombia) a Máster en Ciencias y Artes Militares , U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Director Sección Estudios militares. de la Escuela Militar de Cadetes “General José María Córdova”. Comentarios a: jumapac@gmail. Vol 10 , Núm 10, Año 2012, com Junio, pp. 107-142 ISSN 1900- 6586 108 Juan Manuel Padilla Abstract. The terrorist groups in Colombia have applied Mao’s theory of protracted people’s war, seeking to use all available means of struggle to achieve their revolutionary goals by counteracting govemment policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Warfare, International Law, and the Changing Battlefield
    ARTICLE INFORMATION WARFARE, INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND THE CHANGING BATTLEFIELD Dr. Waseem Ahmad Qureshi* ABSTRACT The advancement of technology in the contemporary era has facilitated the emergence of information warfare, which includes the deployment of information as a weapon against an adversary. This is done using a numBer of tactics such as the use of media and social media to spread propaganda and disinformation against an adversary as well as the adoption of software hacking techniques to spread viruses and malware into the strategically important computer systems of an adversary either to steal confidential data or to damage the adversary’s security system. Due to the intangible nature of the damage caused By the information warfare operations, it Becomes challenging for international law to regulate the information warfare operations. The unregulated nature of information operations allows information warfare to Be used effectively By states and nonstate actors to gain advantage over their adversaries. Information warfare also enhances the lethality of hyBrid warfare. Therefore, it is the need of the hour to arrange a new convention or devise a new set of rules to regulate the sphere of information warfare to avert the potential damage that it can cause to international peace and security. ABSTRACT ................................................................................................. 901 I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 903 II. WHAT IS INFORMATION WARFARE? .............................
    [Show full text]
  • Taming the Trolls: the Need for an International Legal Framework to Regulate State Use of Disinformation on Social Media
    Taming the Trolls: The Need for an International Legal Framework to Regulate State Use of Disinformation on Social Media * ASHLEY C. NICOLAS INTRODUCTION Consider a hypothetical scenario in which hundreds of agents of the Russian GRU arrive in the United States months prior to a presidential election.1 The Russian agents spend the weeks leading up to the election going door to door in vulnerable communities, spreading false stories intended to manipulate the population into electing a candidate with policies favorable to Russian positions. The agents set up television stations, use radio broadcasts, and usurp the resources of local newspapers to expand their reach and propagate falsehoods. The presence of GRU agents on U.S. soil is an incursion into territorial integrity⎯a clear invasion of sovereignty.2 At every step, Russia would be required to expend tremendous resources, overcome traditional media barriers, and risk exposure, making this hypothetical grossly unrealistic. Compare the hypothetical with the actual actions of the Russians during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Sitting behind computers in St. Petersburg, without ever setting foot in the United States, Russian agents were able to manipulate the U.S. population in the most sacred of domestic affairs⎯an election. Russian “trolls” targeted vulnerable populations through social media, reaching millions of users at a minimal cost and without reliance on established media institutions.3 Without using * Georgetown Law, J.D. expected 2019; United States Military Academy, B.S. 2009; Loyola Marymount University M.Ed. 2016. © 2018, Ashley C. Nicolas. The author is a former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Curious Career of Lawfare, 43 Case W
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 43 | Issue 1 2010 The urC ious Career of Lawfare Wouter G. Werner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Wouter G. Werner, The Curious Career of Lawfare, 43 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 61 (2010) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol43/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. File: Werner 2 Created on: 12/23/2010 9:05:00 PM Last Printed: 4/5/2011 8:14:00 PM THE CURIOUS CAREER OF LAWFARE Wouter G. Werner* This article discusses some different uses of the term „lawfare‟ since the 1970‟s. The main aim of the article is to explore how particular ways of framing the concept of “lawfare” affect questions of legal, moral, and polit- ical accountability. In particular, the article contrasts the way in which the term „lawfare‟ has been used in critical theory with the instrumentalization of the term in neoconservative thinking. While critical theory has used the term to rethink questions of accountability and to spur a process of self- critique, neoconservative thinking has mainly used to term to discredit an opponent‟s reliance on law and legal procedure. This has turned the use of the term „lawfare‟ itself into a strategic move—a move that could eventually undermine the integrity of law.
    [Show full text]
  • ISLAMIST LAWFARE: BRIEFS AS WEAPONS of MASS DISRUPTION by Lawrence A
    Foreign Policy Research Institute E-Notes A Catalyst for Ideas Distributed via Email and Posted at www.fpri.org June 2010 ISLAMIST LAWFARE: BRIEFS AS WEAPONS OF MASS DISRUPTION By Lawrence A. Husick, Esq. Lawrence Husick is a Senior Fellow at FPRI’s Center on Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism. He concentrates on the study of terrorist tactics and counterterrorism strategies, with a particular focus on technology leverage as a defining characteristic of the modern terrorist. He is also co-director of the FPRI Wachman Center’s Program on Teaching the History of Innovation. He is a practicing intellectual property attorney. The 2009 Christmas-day bombing attempt on a commercial flight to Detroit was not the first time that terrorists have used briefs as a weapon. A recent presentation in Philadelphia by Daniel Huff, director of the Legal Project of the Middle East Forum, detailed the use of lawsuits by Islamic organizations as a method of silencing criticism and chilling free speech. “Lawfare” is the wrongful use of a legal process to silence and punish free speech critical of radical Islam, terrorism, or its sources of financing. Lawfare also seeks to enact or reinstate blasphemy laws, especially as applied to Islam and its prophet, Mohammad. Libel, defamation, and “hate speech” suits have been pressed in the United States, Great Britain, and elsewhere, with the intent of inflicting great expense on terrorism researchers, their sponsors and publishers. For those who publish primarily on the Internet, however, there may be a preemptive legal strategy available that strikes a blow at the heart of Islamist lawfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Carl Schmitt and the Critique of Lawfare
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2011 Carl Schmitt and the Critique of Lawfare David Luban Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 11-33 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/621 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1797904 43 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 457-471 (2010) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons CARL SCHMITT AND THE CRITIQUE OF LAWFARE David Luban (forthcoming, Case Western International Law Review, symposium on lawfare) ABSTRACT “Lawfare” is the use of law as a weapon of war against a military adversary. Lawfare critics complain that self-proclaimed “humanitarians” are really engaged in the partisan and political abuse of law—lawfare. This paper turns the mirror on lawfare critics themselves, and argues that the critique of lawfare is no less abusive and political than the alleged lawfare it attacks. Radical lawfare critics view humanitarian law with suspicion, as nothing more than an instrument used by weak adversaries against strong military powers. Casting suspicion on humanitarian law by attacking the motives of humanitarian lawyers, they undermine disinterested argument, and ultimately undermine the validity of their own critique. The paper then explores the vision of politics and law underlying the lawfare critique through a reading of the most significant theorist who defends that vision, the German theorist Carl Schmitt.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawfare Today
    Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen XII Lawfare Today . and Tomorrow Charles J. Dunlap, Jr.* AprincipalstrategictacticoftheTaliban...iseitherprovokingorexploiting civilian casualties. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates1 I. Introduction lthough he does not use the term “lawfare,” Secretary Gates’ observation Areflects what is in reality one of the most common iterations of lawfare in today’s conflicts. Specifically, the Taliban are aiming to achieve a particular military effect, that is, the neutralization of US and allied technical superiority, especially with respect to airpower. To do so they are, as Secretary Gates indicates, creating the perception of violations of one of the fundamental norms of the law of armed conflict (LOAC), that is, the distinction between combatants and civilians. While “provoking or exploiting civilian casualties” is clearly a type of lawfare, it is by no means its only form. Although the definition has evolved somewhat since its modern interpretation was introduced in 2001,2 today I define it as “the strategy of using—or misusing—law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve a warfighting objective.”3 As such, it is ideologically neutral, that is, it is best conceptualized much as a weapon that can be wielded by either side in a belligerency. In fact, many uses of legal “weapons” and methodologies avoid the need to resort to physical violence * Major General, US Air Force (Ret.); Visiting Professor of the Practice of Law and Associate Di- rector, Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security, Duke University School of Law. Vol 87.ps C:\_WIP\_Blue Book\_Vol 87\_Ventura\Vol 87.vp Friday, June 10, 2011 9:03:32 AM Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen Lawfare Today .
    [Show full text]
  • Israel, China, and US/NATO – Counter-Terrorism As War Crimes? No
    ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International Security Is s ue Israel, China, and US/NATO – Counter-Terrorism as War Crimes? No. 287 Dr. Christina Lin Sep 2014 Israel, China, and US/NATO – Counter-Terrorism as War Crimes? Dr. Christina Lin September 2014 Abstract In asymmetric warfare whereby the weaker attempts to defeat the stronger, lawfare is increasingly proving to be an effective weapon for terrorists. Defined as a method of using law as a means of realizing a military objec- tive, terrorists are waging lawfare and hijacking the rule of law as another way of fighting, to the detriment of humanitarian values as well as the law itself. Using human shields, abusing international law and post-conflict investigations to blur the line between legitimate counter-terror tactics and human rights violations, lawfare – similar to terror tunnels – is also becoming an effective counter-measure against the superiority of western air power. As such, the international community needs to forge a new normative consensus on terrorism and establish a global counter-terrorism regime to counter this emerging challenge. About ISPSW The Institute for Strategic, Political, Security and Economic Consultancy (ISPSW) is a private institute for research and consultancy. The ISPSW is objective and task oriented and is above party politics. In an ever more complex international environment of globalized economic processes and worldwide political, ecological, social and cultural change, bringing major opportunities but also risks, decision-makers in enter- prises and politics depend more than ever before on the advice of highly qualified experts. ISPSW offers a range of services, including strategic analyses, security consultancy, executive coaching and intercultural competency.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy and Disinformation (Glbl S343e)
    DEMOCRACY AND DISINFORMATION (GLBL S343E) Asha Rangappa Yale Jackson Institute for Global Affairs Summer 2020 Overview of Course This course explores the evolution of information warfare as a national security threat to the United States. Beginning with the KGB’s use of “active measures” during the Cold War, the course looks at how propaganda and disinformation campaigns became central to the Putin regime and how social media has facilitated their expansion and impact. Using Russia’s efforts in the 2016 election as an example, students will examine how the First Amendment places limitations on the U.S.’s ability to counter such operations in the United States and explore how strengthening critical thinking and American social capital might be effective prophylactics against these efforts. At the end of this course, students should be able to: 1. Understand the history, tactics, and goals of Russian disinformation operations in the United States and worldwide; 2. Analyze the ways in which propaganda and disinformation manipulates consumers’ cognitive biases; 3. Recognize self-created vulnerabilities in American society which have been magnified by social media platforms and exploited by Russian intelligence; 4. Develop policy solutions that address the multi-faceted nature of disinformation and its impact on American democracy. Required Texts (in order of reading for the course) 1. Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone 2. Amy Chua, Political Tribes 3. Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) 4. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (chapters will be posted on Canvas) 5. Clint Watts, Messing with the Enemy You may use the link below to order your books at the Yale Bookstore: Yale Bookstore ordering site In addition to the books above, assigned articles, videos, and selected chapters of other books will be posted on Canvas for the weeks they are assigned.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber War, Netwar, and the Future of Cyberdefense
    Cyber War, Netwar, and the Future of Cyberdefense Robert Brose Office of the Director of National Intelligence1 Washington D.C., United States of America Abstract: Over twenty years ago, Arquilla and Ronfeldt warned that both "Netwar" and "Cyberwar" were coming, and could impact the 21st Century security landscape as significantly as combined arms maneuver warfare had impacted the security landscape of the 20th. Since that time, the concept of “Cyberwar” has received great attention, while the parallel concept of “Netwar” has languished, even as its salience to global security has continued to grow. This paper suggests that just as Cyber defense organizations have been required to confront Cyberwar, Netwar organizations, or Netwar-savvy Cyberdefense organizations, are increasingly needed to counter Netwar. Revisiting the Netwar concepts of the 1990s, it offers a 21st century Netwar definition; examines Netwar from a non-western perspective, exploring intersections between Netwar and Russian concepts of ‘Information- Psychological,’ Chinese United Front Theory, and Chinese Legal Warfare, and concludes with thoughts on unique roles that today’s Cyber defence organizations may play in future Netwar conflict. Keywords: Cyberwar, Netwar, Information-Psychological, United Front Theory 1 The author of this paper is the Lead for Futures and Capability Development at the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The author prepared this work as a conceptual thought piece as part of his official U.S. Government duties. However, this paper should not be interpreted as an official policy, policy statement, or endorsement, either expressed or implied, of ODNI or the U.S. Government. This paper is a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Lawfare and Warfare Joel P
    Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Volume 39 | Issue 2 Article 3 8-11-2016 Integrating Lawfare and Warfare Joel P. Trachtman Tufts nU iversity, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr Part of the International Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation Joel P. Trachtman, Integrating Lawfare and Warfare, 39 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 267 (2016), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol39/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTEGRATING LAWFARE AND WARFARE * JOEL P. TRACHTMAN Abstract: Current military campaigns are not waged solely on the physical battlefield, but in multiple other arenas. One such arena is lawfare: legal activity that supports, undermines, or substitutes for other types of warfare. In today’s law-rich environment, with an abundance of legal rules and legal fora, strategists must evaluate the full scope of possible legal ar- gumentation. Lawfare can substitute for warfare where it provides a means to compel specified behavior with fewer costs than kinetic warfare, or even in cases where kinetic warfare would be ineffective. As a result, lawfare can be strategically integrated
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber War Law, Ethics & Policy
    The Internet in Bello: Cyber War Law, Ethics & Policy Seminar held 18 November 2011, Berkeley Law Kate Jastram and Anne Quintin1 I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2 II. Summary of presentations and recommendations ................................................... 2 A. Significance of the issue and applicability of IHL/LOAC to cyber operations .......... 3 B. Insights on specific IHL/LOAC principles and definitions ........................................ 4 C. The need for, and obstacles to, greater U.S. engagement ..................................... 5 D. Cyber speed ............................................................................................................. 6 E. Unique role of the private sector ............................................................................. 6 F. Recommendations for further reflection ................................................................. 6 III. Opening remarks by David Caron ................................................................................ 7 IV. Preparing the Battlefield: The Best Defense ............................................................... 8 A. Comments by Michael Nacht ................................................................................. 8 B. Comments by Sir Daniel Bethlehem ...................................................................... 11 C. Comments by Abraham Sofaer .............................................................................
    [Show full text]